The U.S. president and his famous speech, commemorated yesterday by the Berlin government, surely played a role, but Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms and East German protesters were far more important.

A crane removes a section of the Berlin Wall on November 11, 1989, as West Berliners watch. (AP)

On Wednesday, Berlin
unveiled a plaque in honor of the 25th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's speech demanding
that Mikhail Gorbachev "tear down this wall," delivered June 12, 1987. It was
an exquisite, powerful, and truly historic moment worthy of commemoration. But
Reagan's sometimes-overeager boosters are making some bold claims about the
role that both this speech and its deliverer played in the course of world
history, another example of the ways that the politics of today are distorting
our memory of one of the most complicated conflicts of the 20th century.

It's not
surprising that Reagan-boosters are getting a little carried away with his
legacy, but the extent of their adoration is getting a little extreme. John
Heubusch, Executive Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and
Library, wrote
for Fox News that the states of Eastern Europe "fell to freedom like
dominoes" after Reagan's words "pushed the first one over. One cannot ignore
how his powerful conviction ended the Cold War by firing a verbal salvo, an
oratorical demand to let freedom prevail."

It is certainly
true that the Reagan presidency helped usher along the opening of the inner
German frontier and later the demise of the Soviet Union. After all, his changes
to U.S. foreign policy toward Moscow challenged, among other things, the status quo that assumed the Berlin
Wall's existence as inevitable. And Reagan reasserted the idea that simple coexistence
with the totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe was neither desirable nor
acceptable.

But did Reagan's
1987 address have much bearing on the actual fall of wall? That's a newer idea,
one that happens to put Reagan at the center of a wider narrative of
communism's descent in Europe. In fact, not only was Reagan out of office by
the time the wall collapsed in the summer of 1989, but his speech had received
very little coverage in the media, according to Time
and to historian Michael Meyer, who wrote in his history
of 1989's revolutions, "Major U.S. newspapers with correspondents in
Europe, such as the New York Times, carried stories that ran in the back pages."
Reagan also delivered the speech to an audience of about 45,000,
one tenth the crowd estimated to have attended John F. Kennedy's 1963 speech. When
Reagan declared "Tear down this Wall," it's easy for us to forget now, he was the
visibly aged leader of a lame duck administration clouded by scandal and
corruption, Iran-Contra in particular.

Historians still
dispute, and likely will for many years, the extent to which the Soviet Union
collapsed due to pressures from the U.S. or from within. But the Berlin Wall's
fall was a moment when Gorbachev's actions, not Reagan's, played a particularly
prominent role. The revolts Eastern Europe began in large part because of the
Soviet leader's 1985 decision to launch the reforms of glasnost (openness) and perestroika
(restructuring). Gorbachev also reneged on the Brezhnev Doctrine, which had asserted
that problems within any Warsaw Pact nation were considered "a common problem
and concern of all socialist countries" -- in other words, Moscow would
intervene in Soviet bloc countries to keep them in line.

In eliminating
this mandate, Gorbachev created a climate in places like East Germany much
friendlier to revolution. "What we have now is the Sinatra Doctrine," his chief
spokesman, Gennady Gerasimov, told the world on Good Morning America. "He has a song: 'I Did it My Way.'" Gorbachev
also made clear repeatedly that he wished to see the reform of socialism in
Eastern Europe and warned of the consequences of stagnation. Even as hundreds
gathered outside East Berlin's Palast der
Republik shouting "Gorbi, hilf uns"
-- "Gorbi, help us" -- on the 40th anniversary of East Germany in August 1989, East
German leader Erich Honecker proclaimed, "Den
Sozialismus in seinem Lauf hält weder Ochs noch Esel auf," -- "Neither an
ox nor a donkey is able to stop the progress of socialism". But, as Gorbachev put
it around the same time, "Life punishes those who come too late."

Believing they
had Gorbachev's tacit acquiescence, reform movements that sprung up in Eastern
Europe increased pressure on the East German government to open the wall. In
May 1989, Hungarian Prime Minister Miklós Németh led an effort to remove the border
fence between his country and Austria, which encouraged East Germans to flee
through Czechslovakia to Hungary. By September, 60,000 East Germans were camped
out by the border crossing, at which time Németh allowed for the total opening
of the frontier for these refugees.

By the end of
September, East Germany's Honecker had successfully pressured the Czechoslovak
government, then commanded by fellow hardliner Miloš Jakeš, into shutting their
border with Hungary. Hundreds of East Germans, now stuck in a Czechoslovakia, camped
out on the lawn of the West German embassy in Prague. Honecker relented, allowing
these would-be émigrés safe passage to the West in so-called "freedom trains" that
were to be sealed during their passage through East Germany to the West. But, at
Dresden, demonstrators greeted the trains, climbing on top of the carriages and
hurling rocks and insults at the police. Dresdeners, it should be noted, were unlikely
to have seen Reagan's 1987 address unfiltered, since their city was out of
range of Western broadcasting systems.

On October 9,
one month before the wall fell, 100,000 people marched peacefully through
Leipzig. Armed police were on standby to put the protest down, by violence if
necessary, but then-Politburo member Egon Krenz commanded the police to stand
down, Gorbachev's warnings likely on his mind.

These and other
mass demonstrations within East Germany played a far more significant role than
did Reagan's speech in the fall of the wall on November 9, 1989. In the wake of
sustained pressure from the East German people -- including a demonstration 500,000
strong on the Alexanderplatz public square in Berlin on November 4 -- Politburomember Günter Schabowski announced on November 9 the relaxation of visa
restrictions at the border. "We have decided today to implement a regulation
that allows every citizen of the German Democratic Republic to leave the GDR
through any of the border crossings ... immediately, without delay." His
proclamation set off a clamor to get to the wall as large numbers of East
Germans sought to enter the other side, to rejoin Germany and Europe, forcing
the police to open the border crossings for the first time since 1961. The
flags flying that night as people danced on top of the wall were not American,
but German.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

Even when they’re adopted, the children of the wealthy grow up to be just as well-off as their parents.

Lately, it seems that every new study about social mobility further corrodes the story Americans tell themselves about meritocracy; each one provides more evidence that comfortable lives are reserved for the winners of what sociologists call the birth lottery. But, recently, there have been suggestions that the birth lottery’s outcomes can be manipulated even after the fluttering ping-pong balls of inequality have been drawn.

What appears to matter—a lot—is environment, and that’s something that can be controlled. For example, one study out of Harvard found that moving poor families into better neighborhoods greatly increased the chances that children would escape poverty when they grew up.

While it’s well documentedthat the children of the wealthy tend to grow up to be wealthy, researchers are still at work on how and why that happens. Perhaps they grow up to be rich because they genetically inherit certain skills and preferences, such as a tendency to tuck away money into savings. Or perhaps it’s mostly because wealthier parents invest more in their children’s education and help them get well-paid jobs. Is it more nature, or more nurture?

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.